The Jehovah's witnesses and the rest. What's the stumper?

[oldbadger]

The synoptic Gospels differ from the Gospel of John.. Go figure?!

No. It's not for me to Go Figure anything.
And the real experts cannot agree about which version is correct, in fact a fair % of the 'experts' reckon that the Synoptics must be wrong because no executions would be allowed after the passover had commenced.
Go Figure?!

The experts say to go with the synoptic Gospel
Catholic Answers
The Evangelists and critics generally agree that the Last Supper was on a Thursday, that Christ suffered and died on Friday,........................

Ah..... the Catholic experts want the Thursday, Friday, Sunday timeline to be right.

Look, manipulate it all to fit with your belief needs, that's fine with me.

All I needed from you was this acknowledgement, above, that the Gospels can and do differ from each other, this being one of those examples.

 

[firedragon]

Nope. Jews traditionally don’t pronounce it and, since they don’t, we have no reference for what the implied vowel sounds might be. We don’t know that they’re “e,” “o,” and “a.”

1. Yeah. So how do Jews pronounce it now? What does YHWH mean?

2. You didnt understand the point. Just because the Jews didnt pronounce the four letters, doesn't mean people from another faith shouldn't. So JW's in my opinion have all the right to pronounce it and add it to their identity.

 

[Terry Sampson]

• Exodus 20:7
  • You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain. זלֹ֥א תִשָּׂ֛א אֶת־שֵֽׁם־יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ לַשָּׁ֑וְא כִּ֣י לֹ֤א יְנַקֶּה֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה אֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁר־יִשָּׂ֥א אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ לַשָּֽׁוְא:
• Deuteronomy 5:11
  • You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain. יאלֹ֥א תִשָּׂ֛א אֶת־שֵֽׁם־יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ לַשָּׁ֑וְא כִּ֣י לֹ֤א יְנַקֶּה֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה אֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁר־יִשָּׂ֥א אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ לַשָּֽׁוְא:

TETRAGRAMMATON - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Reason for Disuse.

The avoidance of the original name of God both in speech and, to a certain extent, in the Bible was due, according to Geiger ("Urschrift," p. 262), to a reverence which shrank from the utterance of the Sublime Name; and it may well be that such a reluctance first arose in a foreign, and hence in an "unclean" land, very possibly, therefore, in Babylonia. According to Dalman (l.c. pp. 66 et seq.), the Rabbis forbade the utterance of the Tetragrammaton, to guard against desecration of the Sacred Name; but such an ordinance could not have been effectual unless it had met with popular approval. The reasons assigned by Lagarde ("Psalterium Hicronymi," p. 155) and Halévy ("Recherches Bibliques," i. 65 et seq.) are untenable, and are refuted by Jacob (l.c. pp. 172, 174), who believes that the Divine Name was not pronounced lest it should be desecrated by the heathen. The true name of God was uttered only during worship in the Temple, in which the people were alone; and in the course of the services on the Day of Atonement the high priest pronounced the Sacred Name ten times (Tosef., Yoma, ii. 2; Yoma 39b). This was done as late as the last years of the Temple (Yer. Yoma 40a, 67). If such was the purpose, the means were ineffectual, since the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was known not only in Jewish, but also in non-Jewish circles centuries after the destruction of the Temple, as is clear from the interdictions against uttering it (Sanh. x. 1; Tosef., Sanh. xii. 9; Sifre Zuṭa, in Yalḳ., Gen. 711; 'Ab. Zarah 18a; Midr. Teh. to Ps. xci., end). Raba, a Babylonian amora who flourished about 350, wished to make the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton known publicly (Ḳid. 71b); and a contemporary Palestinian scholar states that the Samaritans uttered it in taking oaths (Yer. Sanh. 28b). The members of the Babylonian academy probably knew the pronunciation as late as 1000 C. E. (Blau, l.c. pp. 132 et seq., 138 et seq.). The physicians, who were half magicians, made special efforts to learn this name, which was believed to possess marvelous powers (of healing, etc.; Yer. Yoma 40a, below).

============

T.S. Note: IMO, the commandment against using the Name in vain supports a belief that there will be consequences to using it: positive consequences if the use does not violate the commandment and negative consequences if the use is "in vain", i.e. violates the commandment and profanes the Name which is holy. It would seem then, there will be consequences to saying the Name if it is pronounced properly and no consequences if it is not pronounced properly. If the Name is pronounced properly and not in vain, the consequences will be positive. If the Name is pronounced properly and in vain, the consequences will be negative.

So, the important question seems to be: Do you like to gamble?

 

[firedragon]

• Exodus 20:7
  • You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain. זלֹ֥א תִשָּׂ֛א אֶת־שֵֽׁם־יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ לַשָּׁ֑וְא כִּ֣י לֹ֤א יְנַקֶּה֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה אֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁר־יִשָּׂ֥א אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ לַשָּֽׁוְא:
• Deuteronomy 5:11
  • You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain. יאלֹ֥א תִשָּׂ֛א אֶת־שֵֽׁם־יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ לַשָּׁ֑וְא כִּ֣י לֹ֤א יְנַקֶּה֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה אֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁר־יִשָּׂ֥א אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ לַשָּֽׁוְא:

TETRAGRAMMATON - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Reason for Disuse.

The avoidance of the original name of God both in speech and, to a certain extent, in the Bible was due, according to Geiger ("Urschrift," p. 262), to a reverence which shrank from the utterance of the Sublime Name; and it may well be that such a reluctance first arose in a foreign, and hence in an "unclean" land, very possibly, therefore, in Babylonia. According to Dalman (l.c. pp. 66 et seq.), the Rabbis forbade the utterance of the Tetragrammaton, to guard against desecration of the Sacred Name; but such an ordinance could not have been effectual unless it had met with popular approval. The reasons assigned by Lagarde ("Psalterium Hicronymi," p. 155) and Halévy ("Recherches Bibliques," i. 65 et seq.) are untenable, and are refuted by Jacob (l.c. pp. 172, 174), who believes that the Divine Name was not pronounced lest it should be desecrated by the heathen. The true name of God was uttered only during worship in the Temple, in which the people were alone; and in the course of the services on the Day of Atonement the high priest pronounced the Sacred Name ten times (Tosef., Yoma, ii. 2; Yoma 39b). This was done as late as the last years of the Temple (Yer. Yoma 40a, 67). If such was the purpose, the means were ineffectual, since the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was known not only in Jewish, but also in non-Jewish circles centuries after the destruction of the Temple, as is clear from the interdictions against uttering it (Sanh. x. 1; Tosef., Sanh. xii. 9; Sifre Zuṭa, in Yalḳ., Gen. 711; 'Ab. Zarah 18a; Midr. Teh. to Ps. xci., end). Raba, a Babylonian amora who flourished about 350, wished to make the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton known publicly (Ḳid. 71b); and a contemporary Palestinian scholar states that the Samaritans uttered it in taking oaths (Yer. Sanh. 28b). The members of the Babylonian academy probably knew the pronunciation as late as 1000 C. E. (Blau, l.c. pp. 132 et seq., 138 et seq.). The physicians, who were half magicians, made special efforts to learn this name, which was believed to possess marvelous powers (of healing, etc.; Yer. Yoma 40a, below).

============

T.S. Note: IMO, the commandment against using the Name in vain supports a belief that there will be consequences to using it: positive consequences if the use does not violate the commandment and negative consequences if the use is "in vain", i.e. violates the commandment and profanes the Name which is holy. It would seem then, there will be consequences to saying the Name if it is pronounced properly and no consequences if it is not pronounced properly. If the Name is pronounced properly and not in vain, the consequences will be positive. If the Name is pronounced properly and in vain, the consequences will be negative.

So, the important question seems to be: Do you like to gamble?

Though I dont agree with your concept that "taking Gods name in vain" means "pronouncing his name" I do really appreciate your posts because you take effort to quote the Bible and of course many sources.

But I dont agree with your explanation. I dont pronounce the word much unless required because well there are Jews in this forum and for them its offensive or at least it affects them. But sometimes in discussion I have to pronounce it for discussions sake. All that said, I think the samaritans pronunciation of the four letters is if wrong, a blasphemy. But if not is that OK?

Also, when the Bible says in vain, as I understand this "in-vain" sentence is not like the old English statement "in-vain" where we say "you just wasted that money in-vain" where the person wasted it on nothing. This statement shav in Hebrew as far as I have been told means "shallow or of vanity" which makes it a "misuse". Thus, it could be that it simply means to tell you not to misuse his name but if you are using it in good stead its alright. As in prayer or with reverence.

This is similar to the arabic word Havah which means "wishful thinking", Greed or ego.

Thus, I believe this particular issue is a faith matter. That is why I think, depending on your faith, its fine.

I remember Justin Bass repeating that Jesus is Yahveh like a million times, and everyone agrees. But they use "Jesus Christ" even when swearing at another. If he is Yahweh (which is a heresy of sabellianism in christianity) then you should not use the word Jesus either, because he is lord and God.

Anyway, this is gonna go long if kept up. Kudos.

 

[Deeje]

The Evangelists and critics generally agree that the Last Supper was on a Thursday, that Christ suffered and died on Friday, and that He arose from the dead on Sunday. As to the day of the month there seems a difference between the record of the synoptic Gospels and that of St. John. In consequence some critics have rejected the authenticity of either account or of both. Since Christians, accepting the inspiration of the Scriptures, cannot admit contradictions in the sacred writers, various attempts have been made to reconcile the statements.

I thought you might be interested in this.....

"The day of Preparation: A name applied to the day preceding the weekly Sabbath, during which the Jews prepared for the Sabbath. (See study note on Mr 15:42.) John’s Gospel includes the words of the Passover. The time period referred to in this context is the morning of Nisan 14, the day of Jesus’ trial and death. The Passover day had begun the evening before, and as shown in the other Gospel accounts, Jesus and the apostles had eaten the Passover meal that night. (Mt 26:18-20; Mr 14:14-17; Lu 22:15) Christ perfectly carried out the regulations of the Law, including the requirement to celebrate the Passover on Nisan 14. (Ex 12:6; Le 23:5) This day in the year 33 C.E. could be viewed as the Preparation of the Passover in the sense that it was the preparation for the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread that was to begin the next day. Because these days were close in the calendar, the entire festival was sometimes referred to by the term “Passover.” (Lu 22:1) The day after Nisan 14 was always a sabbath, regardless of the day of the week on which it fell. (Le 23:5-7) In 33 C.E., Nisan 15 fell on the regular Sabbath, making the day “a great,” or double, Sabbath.—See study note on Joh 19:31.

The day of Preparation: The day preceding the weekly Sabbath. During this day, the Jews got ready for the Sabbath by preparing extra meals and by finishing any work that could not wait until after the Sabbath. In the case mentioned here, the day of Preparation fell on Nisan 14. (Mr 15:42; see Glossary, “Preparation.”) According to the Mosaic Law, dead bodies “should not remain all night on the stake” but, rather, should be buried “on that day.”—De 21:22, 23; compare Jos 8:29; 10:26, 27.

That Sabbath day was a great one: Nisan 15, the day after Passover, was always a sabbath, regardless of the day of the week on which it fell. (Le 23:5-7) When this special Sabbath coincided with the regular Sabbath (the seventh day of the Jewish week, which runs from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday), it was “a great” Sabbath. Such a sabbath followed the day of Jesus’ death, which was on a Friday. From 31 to 33 C.E., the only year in which Nisan 14 fell on a Friday was the year 33 C.E. This fact leads to the conclusion that Jesus died on Nisan 14, 33 C.E.

To have the legs broken: In Latin, this practice was called crurifragium. A brutal form of punishment, it was likely done in this case to hasten the death of those executed on stakes. A person hanging on a stake had difficulty breathing. With his legs broken, he would not be able to raise his body and relieve the pressure on his lungs, so he would suffocate."

Excerpts from https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001070687?q=nisan+14&p=par

The Jewish 'day' began and ended at sundown. Which means that the 'day' Jesus celebrated the Passover was Nisan 14, which began at sundown, so it was the same "day" on which he died. The day of the week does not matter...its the date that Jesus asked his apostle to "remember". (Luke 22:19)

The anniversary of the Passover was always celebrated on Nisan 14 and was replaced by the Lord's supper for Christians because Jesus was the symbolic 'Passover Lamb'.....and since there is no command to celebrate his resurrection, only to commemorate his death which is, after all what paid for the sins of mankind, there is no "Easter" as the churches celebrate it. In fact "Easter" is nowhere to be found in the Bible.....it was an adopted pagan festival dedicated to the goddess of fertility whose emblems were rabbits and eggs.....her name was pronounced "Easter". So we will not touch that because we feel it is in breach of Paul's counsel at 2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

So the day of the week doesn't really matter....waiting for a Friday or any particular day of the week is not what the Jews did...they celebrated their festivals and their Passover according to the date. The Passover was an annual commemoration....so the Lord's Supper is also an annual event on the prescribed date.

 

[sojourner]

Neither does “Jesus.”

Yeah, but you all seem to be adamant about the whole not-appearing-in-the-texts "Jehovah" thing. You seem to be quick to dismiss the Jesus part, but not the Jehovah part. Looks like a double standard to me.

 

[sojourner]

Say it....

Yahweh. Or Yaveh. It's a guess, of course. As is "Jehovah." Why are you all so adamant and particular about your guess being "the Real Name" of God, and others not, as if it's a matter of cosmic importance. Don't you think that's a little... to use your own term: pedantic of you?

The very first Christians were all Jewish

No The Greeks at Antioch were the first to be known as Christians.

How do you lose the name of the world’s most famous author and substitute his title in his own book? What human author would tolerate such a thing?

Which author is that? Shakespeare? Vonnegut? Michener? Surely an anonymous writer of Biblical texts cannot be the "world's most famous" author? And how does said anonymous author "own" the Bible? Additionally, you're saying that your guess at a pronunciation somehow magically ameliorates that error??

Sorry....what?? What do you think “Jehovah” is? “Yahweh" is the transliteration but “Jehovah” is the English translation....just like “Jesus” is.

IOW: it's a guess.

 

[sojourner]

1. Yeah. So how do Jews pronounce it now? What does YHWH mean?

2. You didnt understand the point. Just because the Jews didnt pronounce the four letters, doesn't mean people from another faith shouldn't. So JW's in my opinion have all the right to pronounce it and add it to their identity.

But that's not what they do. what they do is to take a "guess" that was published years ago and claim that that "guess" is the "Real Name" of God -- and further, that them "knowing" that "Real Name" makes them, somehow, the only real Christians.

 

[firedragon]

But that's not what they do. what they do is to take a "guess" that was published years ago and claim that that "guess" is the "Real Name" of God -- and further, that them "knowing" that "Real Name" makes them, somehow, the only real Christians.

2. You didnt understand the point. Just because the Jews didnt pronounce the four letters, doesn't mean people from another faith shouldn't. So JW's in my opinion have all the right to pronounce it and add it to their identity.

 

[sojourner]

Yes!....and thank God for that! 'Orthodoxy' was not what Jesus taught

Neither is "JW Speak," by your definition. The judgment door swings both ways. Difference between you and me is this: I don't care what you believe. You're as legit as anyone else. You, apparently, seem to be willing to say that I'm not a real Christian. (BTW, that's not what Jesus taught, either). Where I draw the line is precisely there: your judgment of other people, when you have no authority to do so, and your appropriation of the religion. You all claimed the Christian sandbox was tainted, built a new sandbox, moved into it, and then claimed that your sandbox is the "original" and "real" sandbox. It's disingenuous.

No, my posts don't appear to portray a good understanding of what "you" teach.....there is a difference. Who said you must be right?

You do. And "right" consists of what you believe.

I stand by every word in it.....you didn't prove me wrong.

...and other "I-have-to-make-myself-feel-good" fantasies.

The crickets were heard the loudest when I asked you to explain what your own religion teaches and practices.

You seem to be well-versed enough in Christianity to judge our veracity.

Who is "the LORD" here in capital letters? it's YHWH....Yahweh...Jehovah.
That makes Israel Jehovah's witnesses.

But it doesn't make them Jehovah's Witnesses, as you wrote.

but you stumbled over the capital letters when we identify ourselves as "Jehovah's Witnesses".....it is the official name of our denomination

You wrote them.

It wasn't me quibbling about capital letters

No, it was just you insinuating through their use that ancient Jews were part of your denomination.

No, actually I find it rather sad that you feel the need to do that in order to elevate your own status

I'm sorry that you think I'm "elevating my status."

Why do you suppose that none of the 12 were educated in Judaism?

They were. Most Jewish boys in that time were educated in Torah.

Who is deflecting now? Can't stand and take the same scrutiny that you dish out to us...? I wonder why? It makes me think that you have something to hide.

No, it's simply that it would add nothing cogent to the discussion at hand

Which god would that be?

Isn't there only one God?

And you have a direct line apparently...?

The Faith does, and it's the Faith that discerns the call.

If you think my posts are disingenuous, then perhaps it will help if we can see if your own claims are disingenuous...?

I haven't made any claims, save the ones that call your posts into question.

Running away is not an option.....are you afraid that someone will discover that your beliefs and practices are not really "Christian", despite your 'label'?

Oh, but they are. You don't have any idea what I believe. You can spout all the internet definitions you like. But you're no clearer about shamanism by doing so. It's an umbrella term that extends beyond the scope of what you reprinted here. And none of it adds anything of significance to this discussion.

 

[sojourner]

2. You didnt understand the point. Just because the Jews didnt pronounce the four letters, doesn't mean people from another faith shouldn't. So JW's in my opinion have all the right to pronounce it and add it to their identity.

Of course they do. My point was that they claim "authenticity." But since the Jews didn't pronounce the name, we don't have an authentic pronunciation. They can say anything they want; they just can't supersede the religion on the claim that what they pronounce is somehow authentic in the least.

 

[firedragon]

Of course they do. My point was that they claim "authenticity." But since the Jews didn't pronounce the name, we don't have an authentic pronunciation. They can say anything they want; they just can't supersede the religion on the claim that what they pronounce is somehow authentic in the least.

I think this pronunciation matter has taken you.

Fine mate. Cheers.

 

[sojourner]

I think this pronunciation matter has taken you.

Fine mate. Cheers.

It’s not really the pronunciation that matters. What matters is the appropriation based on a particular pronunciation, and the disingenuous way in which the appropriation is undertaken.

 

[firedragon]

It’s not really the pronunciation that matters. What matters is the appropriation based on a particular pronunciation, and the disingenuous way in which the appropriation is undertaken.

Your prerogative.

I tend to think its a trivial matter because the world over everything is pronounced differently. There are countries where if you go and say "Jesus" they will ask you "who". And mind you, they are very traditional and very conservative christians. Just that they pronounce it Yesu, jesu, and sometimes yesus.

The pronunciation of Yahveh in the Jewish vernacular is not something invented as per their tradition and its just that, its tradition they believe is handed over to them from their forefathers going back in history. Maybe someday, someone made a mistake and it became a tradition, but that kind of assumption could be made about many many things. Way back in the 19th century when scholars developed the documentary hypothesis they used "J" to Yahwehists. There is no John, judas, Jesus, James, anywhere in the Bible. This is simple English adaptation. But people are making mountains out of the trivial. While you claim Yahweh is a invention of a pronunciation some scholars like van den Broek trace it back to Greece and even Egypt. Depends on which method you are using. Are you using a historical method or another critical method? There are many scholars who use the simile method to understand that it is using the same diacritical marks as Adonai. With so many arguments based on the biblical text and tradition itself for both Yahveh and Jehovah or if you insist on dropping the J, Jehovah that its invalid now to call dishonesty on anyone's part so simply, or/and to say someone invented it. If the JW's were born in the late 19th century then in the early 18th century scholars like reland were already discussing the pronunciation issue of Jehovah way before the JW's were born. Wellhausen used it before the JW's ever were and no scholar who opposed him and his theories of form criticism of the Tanakh or rather the Torah ever went fighting pettily over the pronunciation of the "J".

Cheers.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You all claimed the Christian sandbox was tainted, built a new sandbox, moved into it, and then claimed that your sandbox is the "original" and "real" sandbox. It's disingenuous.

Mathew 12:25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.

Christianity and Islam have not been able to become One.

There is wisdom to be found why there is a promise that the day will arrive when we will stand as One people under One God.

That day did arrive, we are now learning how to stand together as One human race.

Regards Tony

 

[sojourner]

Your prerogative.

I tend to think its a trivial matter because the world over everything is pronounced differently. There are countries where if you go and say "Jesus" they will ask you "who". And mind you, they are very traditional and very conservative christians. Just that they pronounce it Yesu, jesu, and sometimes yesus.

The pronunciation of Yahveh in the Jewish vernacular is not something invented as per their tradition and its just that, its tradition they believe is handed over to them from their forefathers going back in history. Maybe someday, someone made a mistake and it became a tradition, but that kind of assumption could be made about many many things. Way back in the 19th century when scholars developed the documentary hypothesis they used "J" to Yahwehists. There is no John, judas, Jesus, James, anywhere in the Bible. This is simple English adaptation. But people are making mountains out of the trivial. While you claim Yahweh is a invention of a pronunciation some scholars like van den Broek trace it back to Greece and even Egypt. Depends on which method you are using. Are you using a historical method or another critical method? There are many scholars who use the simile method to understand that it is using the same diacritical marks as Adonai. With so many arguments based on the biblical text and tradition itself for both Yahveh and Jehovah or if you insist on dropping the J, Jehovah that its invalid now to call dishonesty on anyone's part so simply, or/and to say someone invented it. If the JW's were born in the late 19th century then in the early 18th century scholars like reland were already discussing the pronunciation issue of Jehovah way before the JW's were born. Wellhausen used it before the JW's ever were and no scholar who opposed him and his theories of form criticism of the Tanakh or rather the Torah ever went fighting pettily over the pronunciation of the "J".

Cheers.

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. It doesn’t matter. They’re making a mountain out of a molehill when they insist that Jehovah is the Real Name of God, and that their usage of that particular appellation gives them some kind of authenticity over the rest of us. It does not, and that’s my beef.

 

[sojourner]

Mathew 12:25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.

Christianity and Islam have not been able to become One.

There is wisdom to be found why there is a promise that the day will arrive when we will stand as One people under One God.

That day did arrive, we are now learning how to stand together as One human race.

Regards Tony

I agree. IDK why they have separate out like that. It seems counterintuitive to the spiritual dynamic.

 

[cataway]

I agree. IDK why they have separate out like that. It seems counterintuitive to the spiritual dynamic.

Acts 15 :14 Symʹe·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 ‘After these things I will return and raise up again the tent of David that is fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 17 so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things, 18 known from of old.’ 19 Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.

 

[sojourner]

Acts 15 :14 Symʹe·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 ‘After these things I will return and raise up again the tent of David that is fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 17 so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things, 18 known from of old.’ 19 Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.

Nah. Doesn’t work. This is the archetype of the “new Israel,” which was the issue for the Gentile Christians. It’s replacement theology. We see that it ultimately doesn’t work; Judaism is still valid and relevant as the people of God. Replacement theology draws from a sense of entitlement and appropriation, which is not what Christ taught. Jesus includes the outcast and lifts the lowly. Appropriation and entitlement usurp. It’s the wrong paradigm.

 

[cataway]

Nah. Doesn’t work. This is the archetype of the “new Israel,” which was the issue for the Gentile Christians. It’s replacement theology. We see that it ultimately doesn’t work; Judaism is still valid and relevant as the people of God. Replacement theology draws from a sense of entitlement and appropriation, which is not what Christ taught. Jesus includes the outcast and lifts the lowly. Appropriation and entitlement usurp. It’s the wrong paradigm.

“new Israel,” hello